Personal review:
A good recap of his previous writings and talks on the subject for the first third, but a bit long. Having paid attention to them for the past year or two, my attention started drifting a few times. I ended up being more impressed with how much he’s managed to condense explaining “enshittification” from 45+ minutes down to around 15.
As soon as he starts building off of that to work towards the core of his message for this talk, I was more-or-less glued to the screen. At first because it’s not exactly clear where he’s going, and there are (what felt like) many specific court rulings to keep up with. Thankfully, once he has laid enough groundwork he gets straight his point. I don’t want to spoil or otherwise lessen the performance he gives, so I won’t directly comment on what his point is in the body of this post - I think the comments are better suited for that anyways.
I found the rest to be pretty compelling. He rides the fine line between directionless discontent and overenthusiastic activist-with-a-plan as he doubles down on his narrative by calling back to the various bits of groundwork he laid before - now that we’re “in” on the idea, what felt like stumbling around in the dark turns into an illuminating path through some of the specifics of the last twenty to forty years of the dynamics of power between tech bosses and their employees. The rousing call to action was also great way to end and wrap it all up.
I’ve become very biased towards Cory Doctorow’s ideas, in part because they line up with a lot of the impressions I have from my few years working as a dev in a big-ish multinational tech company. This talk has done nothing to diminish that bias - on the contrary.
Great talk, but I’m getting a little tired of Doctorow’s calls to action that result in nothing but crickets from the community at large. He’s written/spoken numerous calls to action for various issues since the early 2000’s.
It’s not Doctorow’s fault, I think it’s rather that the majority of the tech community isn’t listening. Doctorow can talk until he’s blue in the face and it won’t matter if the larger community doesn’t actually give a shit about his ideas.
i for one have never heard of this guy, i had read this talk but didnt even know the name of the person until just now. i am rather new to super niche internet spaces beyond the bigger niches though so i may not be a good representation.
That’s fair, but he has indeed been around a long time, and is even portrayed as wearing goggles and a hero-cape in tech-comic XKCD.
He was the main editor at zine-turned-blog BoingBoing in the early 2000’s. I hope you enjoy finding out more about him, he’s got good tech philosophies.
A lot of his science fiction writing is available with a Creative Commons license, meaning that you can download and read it for free. I really enjoy his quirky, sardonic style.
https://craphound.com/tag/creative-commons/
Gets you to a page where you can download.
deleted by creator
I cannot imagine how those two things could possibly be true unless you did actually hear of him and either got the name wrong or just forgot
I cannot confirm or deny I may have suffered brain damage
His ideas aren’t monetizable. They’re a throwback to the golden age when tools and utilities were built for passion or need.
Now, tooling is built by for-profit corporations. It satisfies users enough that there isn’t enough room for passion projects. For-profit tooling tends to get usability right.
Look at the fediverse: it’s a workable system that users would be fine with, if more usable for-profit alternatives didn’t exist.
For-profit tooling tends to get usability right
Until enshittification happens and the photo-editer that’s turned into the shorthand slang for editing a picture is suddenly an unaffordable subscription.
If we crowdsource such tools, or otherwise make them FOSS then they dont fall into that trap. Even one that sells out can be split off back into a FOSS project.
This feels like a First Follower problem.
He’s clearly on the right track, but the first steps have a lot of inertia holding them back. Also, is hard to act as a community when we’re looking for those first few leaders to do something on their own that we as individuals can get behind.
We need some frameworks for action. I don’t think we know what that looks like yet.
Aside from echoing @SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone and Doctorow’s statements about unionizing, I am aware of a few others who are trying things that I’d describe as complimentary to unions.
This is a panel titled “Why hasn’t Open Source Won?” where several of the speakers attempt to sketch out a framework wherein a programmer would have more decision over how their code is used: https://youtu.be/k3eycjekIAk . I’ll admit, I’m not the most impressed with where they get to in the limited time they have. Nevertheless, I think it’s a useful angle of consideration to have in the tool belt.
This is an org/foundation that is trying to walk the walk with regards to governing tech democratically: https://nivenly.org/ I haven’t kept up with any recent developments of theirs.
“framework wherein a programmer would have more decision over how their code is used” <> “governing tech democratically”
That’s a bit of a contradiction, no?
Well for one, change will never come from waiting for “leadership” to take control.
Change will only ever come from the workers organizing together from the ground up, waiting for someone else to give you the framework will always result in a framework that binds you.
Amen, brother.
I know I’ve posted basically this comment before, but they’re listening.
They just don’t care.
Nothing that’s been enshittified has hurt their stock options or base pay or caused massive layoffs, and until all (most?) of those become true, they’re not going to care.
Their customers keep eating the shit sandwich, they keep making $300k a year, and getting option refreshers, so nobody is going to rock the boat.
I think who you mean by tech community here is important too. CEOs? Their pay depends in part on them not listening.
Enthusiasts? Engineers? People who use technology more than incidentally? Left-leaning tech circles? Some have heard him, the idea of enshittification has spread well.
Sometimes ideas don’t spread very much until they do in a big way. This feels to me like one where that point exists, and people will take notice when it’s hit.
The problem is that if you’re working in any of the big tech companies we’re talking about, at basically any level, a substantial portion of your compensation is stock.
The dude writing the code and the CEO are sharing the same set of incentives, if not the same value ($) of incentive.
It’s shockingly good at taking otherwise decent people and flipping the moral center off because now you’re deeply deeply invested in value extraction via stock prices, regardless of what you have to do to get there.
I’ve had more than a few friends turn utterly unrecognizable and defensive over shit they absolutely would have thought was gross as fuck in the past, except now they look to make six or even seven figures from it, so whatever, it’s fine. If not them, then someone else, and they might as well be the ones to cash in.
So you’re not wrong, but stock options are shockingly good at getting everyone’s goals and desires aligned and while I don’t have enough of a supply of tinfoil to think that might actually be the point of giving everyone options, eh, I’d be shocked if it wasn’t at least an understood outcome.
I mean, I agree with your assessment, but I personally don’t classify “hearing what someone says, but dismissing it outright” as “listening.” Semantics, I suppose.
Well, I don’t think all the guys writing the code and building the servers are dismissing it outright: there’s no question the MBAs and c-suite are, but they’re worthless fucks in general. (Sorry MBA havers, but it’s true and you know it.)
The tech bros just want the money and are willing to be as amoral as they have to be, but that’s going to last only and exactly as long as they’re getting overpaid and are being bribed into not caring.
Ultimately these guys (probably) have sufficient power to force change if they really really wanted to, but it’s firmly a case of change-will-hurt-them and so… they listen, but do nothing.
There’s Upton Sinclair’s famous remark that it’s “difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”, but I don’t think that’s the whole story. There’s a part of them that does hear, but holds the understanding in abeyance, saving it for use when circumstances change and it no longer threatens their self-interest.
That’s activism for you… 95% of people don’t listen, but if 5% do, you already made a mark.
It’s like with people who are stuck in traffic. They are frustrated and so they wish for for change. They wish for more lanes and more roads (and bigger cars, faster cars, more cars). The natural human reaction when something doesn’t work is: Try the same thing harder! It’s not to try something else.
I think we have all been in situations where we failed to push a door open, and so we angrily pushed again harder before easily pulling the door open.
I see lots of people agreeing that there is a problem, as evidenced by the popularity of the term “enshittification”. But the reaction is to double down on the policies that got us here.
You can see that in AI threads here. People call for more intellectual property, more silo-ing of data. Of course, that won’t work and Doctorow has explained that on several occasions. https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2024-05-13-spooky-action-at-a-close-up-invisible-hand-5c873636eb47
Other institutions that are apparently considered trustworthy also “side with AI companies”, in that they understand that fair use is in the interest of society. For example, libraries including the Internet Archive. https://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AI-principles.pdf https://blog.archive.org/2023/11/02/internet-archive-submits-comments-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/